Have you heard? The Navy will now allow women on subs.

[Liz CA]

Can you - supposing you are a woman - imagine going on duty on a sub that is deployed for months at a time with 50 or however many (?) other men you don't know?

Do you think this will remain just "policy" but will not be implemented because of the obvious hurdles?

[bettyandbob]

I'm sure women will serve and serve honorably. Just like women now serve in combat and women fly planes and now fly jets, not just transport.

[Liz CA]

I'm sure women will serve and serve honorably. Just like women now serve in combat and women fly planes and now fly jets, not just transport.

 

I am not questioning women's intellectual ability to serve on a sub but more the logistical implications - or perhaps I just don't picture the typical layout of a sub correctly? :001_huh:

[TravelingChris]

It will only be women officers because they don't have facilities for women enlisted. I think there will be problems but not anywhere as many as if they had tried to also have female enlistees. A sub is very unlike a regular ship and the closest environment I think it resembles is the space station but with a lot more people and with a very different mix of people. So while I think that a well educated middle aged group of people in an enclosed environment is one thing, a mixed group of ages and educational levels in an enclosed environment is another. I don't think the problem will be pregnancies as much as potential insubordination, hazing, etc.

[bigdogs29906]

I can imagine it, though it wouldn't be my first choice....:)

 

 

Outside of adding women's quarters/bathrooms ~ what are the obvious hurdles you see? Women and men work together all the time. I don't see much difference in the way it will work (above the water vs. below it).

[jillian]

dh is on a sub, and honestly he doesn't care, but logistically there are going to be concerns. i guess it will have to play out to see how many challenges are actually there. I don't care either way, not concerned about potential "difficult" situations with mixed gender subs.

[Liz CA]

It will only be women officers because they don't have facilities for women enlisted. I think there will be problems but not anywhere as many as if they had tried to also have female enlistees. A sub is very unlike a regular ship and the closest environment I think it resembles is the space station but with a lot more people and with a very different mix of people. So while I think that a well educated middle aged group of people in an enclosed environment is one thing, a mixed group of ages and educational levels in an enclosed environment is another. I don't think the problem will be pregnancies as much as potential insubordination, hazing, etc.

 

Gosh, I hadn't even thought of the "mixing" part in that context but tried to imagine myself there and the lack of privacy. I have only seen pics of a sub's interior and it looked so small and tight that I felt sorry for the guys. As a woman, I cannot imagine squeezing in there. Would you have to get dressed under your blankets? :lol:

[Rebecca VA]

The guys have to take three-minute showers because of the lack of water available on the sub. I wonder if women will be willing to do that, day after day after day?

[Liz CA]

I wish they would do single sex subs, but that's jsut me.

 

I was just thinking of that. I could picture that - given the right mix of women, it may even be *fun* in as much as you can have fun there.

I am surprised though that those of you who are in the know, think that the subs will be easily "restructured" to accomodate women. I thought this would be a major expense & hurdle to implementing the policy.

[Thea]

My dh served on subs for 8 years. He is very opposed having females serve w/males on submarines.

 

Just to clarify--he does not have any issues with women in the military, doing the same jobs as men --as long as they can meet the standards.

[myfunnybunch]

The guys have to take three-minute showers because of the lack of water available on the sub. I wonder if women will be willing to do that, day after day after day?

 

Why would women be any less willing than men?

 

I'm not being snarky, btw. I just don't get why shower time would be an issue, or at least why it's not an equally unpleasant issue for both men and women.

 

Cat

[Rebecca VA]

I think women just tend to want to feel cleaner, especially at certain times. They usually wash and condition their hair, instead of just washing it, and that takes twice as long -- not to mention that their hair is usually longer.

 

Just because women hold a professional status doesn't mean they're exactly like guys in every way.

[Julie in Austin]

The guys have to take three-minute showers because of the lack of water available on the sub.

 

Irony alert.

 

(I imagine they can't use seawater, but that would be galling to be literally surrounded by water and not be able to take a decent shower!)

[hornblower]

Norway, Australia, Canada and Spain already do.

 

This is a great step.

 

:hurray::hurray: Go, women!

[abbeyej]

Honestly? The *sub* part sounds *awful* to me. Way worse than any gender-related issues that could arise. I've been on a sub once (above the water), and I don't think you could pay me enough to get me on one. I'm amazed by those who serve in that way.

[Mrs Mungo]

Can you - supposing you are a woman - imagine going on duty on a sub that is deployed for months at a time with 50 or however many (?) other men you don't know?

Do you think this will remain just "policy" but will not be implemented because of the obvious hurdles?

 

They will overcome the hurdles, just as other units have overcome such hurdles.

 

An interesting statistic:

About 52,446 women serve on active duty in the U.S. Navy, or about 15 percent of total personnel. Navy officials said women also make up about half the pool of potential recruits with educational degrees that qualify them for training as submarine officers.

 

A quote from another article:

One reason the Navy is making the change now is because it has had trouble meeting some of its goals to recruit qualified officers to be submariners, according to a blog by Bruner.

 

They have been saying for several years that they don't have enough males who manage to qualify. This is one way to ease that shortage.

 

The guys have to take three-minute showers because of the lack of water available on the sub. I wonder if women will be willing to do that, day after day after day?

 

I think women just tend to want to feel cleaner, especially at certain times. They usually wash and condition their hair, instead of just washing it, and that takes twice as long -- not to mention that their hair is usually longer.

 

Just because women hold a professional status doesn't mean they're exactly like guys in every way.

 

I don't think this is true at all. My dh (despite being military) hates to be dirty. When he comes home from deployment, the first thing he does is take a long, long bath followed by a shower. I don't think this is a greater burden for women than for men.

 

The housing is already set up in "pods", at least for the officers. I don't know the details but my cousin wasn't worried about the housing.

 

Correct, right now it's just officers. There's been no time-line set for integrating enlisted women *because* the subs will likely be modified. They are also starting with the Ohio Class submarines, which are the largest subs in the US Navy.

 

I still don't think it is a good idea. It's awfully hard to remain a secret if you have to let a pregnant woman off the boat. :glare:

 

My hubby has had females who were unable to deploy because of pregnancy. He's never had to send home a pregnant woman. Not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying it's rare. I would imagine it would probably be less common that people getting hurt on submarines, my dh has sent lots of people home hurt (including people who have fallen out of bunk beds and seriously injured themselves).

 

An interesting story on 3 women who broke the gender barrier in another Navy specialty: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/usw_summer_09/q&a.html

[jillian]

Why would women be any less willing than men?

 

I'm not being snarky, btw. I just don't get why shower time would be an issue, or at least why it's not an equally unpleasant issue for both men and women.

 

Cat

not to mention during "that time of the month" i know i feel NASTY and take longer showers and/or multiple ones per day

[myfunnybunch]

not to mention during "that time of the month" i know i feel NASTY and take longer showers and/or multiple ones per day

 

Ah, I get that. :) But I think you might be overgeneralizing your own personal feelings about menstruation (and washing hair) to many or all women. I don't feel any dirtier when I'm menstruating, for example, and while I certainly make every effort to keep clean, I don't think it necessitates longer or multiple showers.

 

My point isn't that my experience is more valid than yours, simply that different women have different needs in this area. I'd expect that any woman who signs up for duty on a submarine is already well aware of the limitations imposed by shower issues, among other things, and is prepared to deal with them. Shower length certainly shouldn't be used as a reason for women to be barred from serving on a submarine.

 

Cat

[nukeswife]

I think it's great. I don't see that there will be any more problems than on any of the smaller surface vessels. It make take a little more planning in the beginning but these are professionals.

 

As for changing under the blankets, Why? I'm guessing staterooms will be gender segregated as will the bathrooms just like on other ships. Unless somethings changed that I'm unaware of the current co-ed ships don't have mixed gender staterooms or bathrooms.

 

My dh is currently on a Destroyer that has been co-ed for a while and some of those spaces in the ship are pretty small even though it's a larger vessel and the crew manages to do their jobs without issue.

[jillian]

Ah, I get that. :) But I think you might be overgeneralizing your own personal feelings about menstruation (and washing hair) to many or all women. I don't feel any dirtier when I'm menstruating, for example, and while I certainly make every effort to keep clean, I don't think it necessitates longer or multiple showers.

 

My point isn't that my experience is more valid than yours, simply that different women have different needs in this area. I'd expect that any woman who signs up for duty on a submarine is already well aware of the limitations imposed by shower issues, among other things, and is prepared to deal with them. Shower length certainly shouldn't be used as a reason for women to be barred from serving on a submarine.

 

Cat

oh i know that, and ultimately i have no say lol. dh doesn't care either and he's on a sub lol. as my dh always says though you don't know sh!t about sub life until you are on one.

[lionfamily1999]

not to mention during "that time of the month" i know i feel NASTY and take longer showers and/or multiple ones per day

I was wondering about that aspect too. They are tight quarters and...... perhaps someone knows what happens with the waste? (Picturing a sub hooking up to an RV sewer line :lol:).

[jillian]

I was wondering about that aspect too. They are tight quarters and...... perhaps someone knows what happens with the waste? (Picturing a sub hooking up to an RV sewer line :lol:).

dh made that comment too...women's berthing is going to smell like sh!t lol.

[mbeaser]

My command almost tried to send me on temporary duty to a sub that would have been getting underway for a few days. I was an E-5 at the time, and I would have had to take over the XO's stateroom while I was onboard. At the time, my now XH was underway and I was pumping for DS, so I was freaking out on many different levels. They ended up swapping my assignment with a contractor, which I'm sure cost the command a pretty penny, but was better in so many ways than sending me (he knew the systems better, too, that the ship was having problems with). So, I'd bet that there have been other women on subs on temporary duty, even if none have been permanently on them yet.

[justamouse]

They all smell horrible when they get off the boat. I wonder if the men will shave more with women on board.;)

 

If I wanted that duty I would probably choose a form of bc that stopped my cycles, not that anyone should have to do that, but I would for my own comfort and ease.

 

Exactly. There are ways to deal and these are professionals. I can imagine a shorter haircut and a dep shot. I know I would.

[Brigitte]

My concern with women on ships and subs in particular has nothing to do with their ability to do the job. It has to do with the fact that romantic relationships are going to develop and the drama that can result, especially if there is a break-up, is going to be detrimental to the crew. The crews on subs are small, quarters are close and throwing the potential for romantic relationships (and I don't necessarily mean sexual relationships) into that is not using the best of judgement. They can say "no fraternization among the crew" all they want, it is going to happen. I was in the Navy and saw it happen in small detachments and everyone ends up on edge when relationships develope and fall apart. It is not pretty.

 

Now, I will qualify that if it is just female officers coming aboard, I don't think that that will be a problem. But when they start bringing young, junior enlisted females on board, it is going to be much harder. (I was one of those young, junior, enlisted girls long ago. :tongue_smilie:)

[LibraryLover]

Women and periods and hair, oh my!

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I'm sure women will serve and serve honorably. Just like women now serve in combat and women fly planes and now fly jets, not just transport.

 

I am a Naval Academy grad. Just before graduation, they announced that the Navy was moving several frigates to the reserves. As such, they would be opened up to women. The ships didn't do 6 month deployments to the Med or the Gulf, but they did deploy for several months at a time and were underway a lot for the training of the reservists who drilled onboard.

 

I was the first female officer on the ship. I qualified as Engineering Officer of the Watch, Officer of the Deck and Surface Warfare Officer onboard.

 

There were fewer problems than some pessimists had predicted. I don't recall any of the women on this ship getting pregnant (although several women on my next ship, which was far larger, did). But there was one very pretty and popular sailor who was the subject of a fist fight on the messdecks between two of the sailors that she had dated. I also think that she created a false set of orders for one of her boyfriends to use to break his lease (we lived in the same apartment building).

 

One female officer and a male officer were in a long time fraternization relationship, which they hid rather poorly. They put the other junior officers in the awkward position of either lying for them or outing them. It got to the point that some of the other officers were openly contemptious of orders from the male officer when he was on watch because even legitimate directions were taken as being done to ease the situation of the female officer.

 

One of the other academy women to go into the frigates had been a roommate of mine. She got into a fraternization relationship with one of her enlisted sailors. After being told by the executive officer that her conduct was inappropriate and that she was not to be around him anymore, they went off and got married. That was pretty much the end of her career in the Navy. Within a year, she was a civilian (so much for the expensive education the Navy had given her), divorced (so much for "I can't help who I fall in love with."). I ran into the enlisted guy a couple years later. He told me that he still hoped to make Chief Petty Officer, but was waiting until enough years had passed that that the negative evaluations from that tour wouldn't show up on his record (personally, I hope that he never made Chief).

 

This isn't to say that women on ships are a bunch of homewreckers. The vast majority of the women and men, that I served with were dedicated to what they were doing. But some were also selfish, greedy people who did what they wanted because that was what they wanted. I don't think that all of the women on subs will be s*xually assaulted or get pregnant or fraternize within the sub. But some will. I don't think that all of the marriages of the guys on the sub will fall apart because they are spending so much time with women on the sub. But some will.

 

Let me bend this around to the threads recently about why literature based education might still be of value. I see this change as an example of looking at the technical feasibility of something. Can women pass nuke school? Can we make the necessary accomodations for berthing and showers? Will this help to solve a problem recruiting for this arduous career?

 

But I also think that it seems to ignore the historical and literary lessons that while some people in a tough situation will behave more self-sacrificially than you expect, others will behave more cravenly than you planned for. For every Mr. Roberts there is a Captain Queeg.

[myfunnybunch]

Let me bend this around to the threads recently about why literature based education might still be of value. I see this change as an example of looking at the technical feasibility of something. Can women pass nuke school? Can we make the necessary accomodations for berthing and showers? Will this help to solve a problem recruiting for this arduous career?

 

But I also think that it seems to ignore the historical and literary lessons that while some people in a tough situation will behave more self-sacrificially than you expect, others will behave more cravenly than you planned for. For every Mr. Roberts there is a Captain Queeg.

 

Interesting.

 

So, in your opinion, what would looking at this issue from a historical and/or literary perspective look like, and what lessons or sources would you look at?

 

And would that different perspective, looking beyond logistics, necessarily mean denying (or not denying) military women co-ed service opportunities on ships and submarines because some men and some women might behave badly?

 

Those are real questions, by the way, in the interest of discussion. I'm genuinely interested in this perspective. :)

 

Cat

[Aggie]

My dh and I said a long time ago that there should be an all female surface ship, the USS PMS.

 

The all female sub would then be the USS Witch. ;)

 

One of the biggest concerns is an ectopic pregnancy. It would present some problems for a corpsman to diagnose and treat one.

 

Of course, there isn't supposed to be any fraternization, but each command deals with it differently. Some are very strict, others give a small slap on the wrist to the offending parties. It's going to happen, and the effect it will have on the crews will vary.

[Danestress]

is that women, being smaller on the average, might be more comfortable with the very small quarters. My husband did part of a summer on a sub while at the academy and he *hated* it. We toured one together, and I must say I thought it was just awful. I can't imagine choosing that. But I do think women might be well suited for it just based on size difference.

[kalanamak]

 

One of the biggest concerns is an ectopic pregnancy. It would present some problems for a corpsman to diagnose and treat one.

 

 

More than an appy? Early on, an ectopic is treatable without surgery. One can abstain or use BCPs, things that don't reduce the risk of an appy.

[Aggie]

More than an appy? Early on, an ectopic is treatable without surgery. One can abstain or use BCPs, things that don't reduce the risk of an appy.

 

The corpsmen are actually trained to do emergency appendectomies.

 

With the ectopics, though, a woman would first have to present herself with problems. Depending on the circumstances of the boat, she may feel discouraged about doing that, esp if she is young, inexperienced, and scared. Then when it's really bad, it's time for surgery, ya know?

 

And one would hope that preventive measures are mandatory, but .....

[mlbuchina]

My hubby has had females who were unable to deploy because of pregnancy. He's never had to send home a pregnant woman. Not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying it's rare.

 

I think it depends on the kind of ship. Carriers usually end up sending quite a few home pregnant.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Interesting.

 

So, in your opinion, what would looking at this issue from a historical and/or literary perspective look like, and what lessons or sources would you look at?

 

And would that different perspective, looking beyond logistics, necessarily mean denying (or not denying) military women co-ed service opportunities on ships and submarines because some men and some women might behave badly?

 

Those are real questions, by the way, in the interest of discussion. I'm genuinely interested in this perspective. :)

 

Cat

 

I'm doing a scout weekend, but I'll try to come back and give you a considered answer in a day or so.

 

Off the top of my head I would say that it would involve some interviews with women who had experience being the first women on their ships and squadrons. And I would make an effort to include both women who stayed Navy and those who got out. In my experience, women who stay in are those who have a more favorable experience, or who have decided that all the sacrifices were acceptable. If you don't talk to women who got out, then you tend to bias in favor of those with a positive view.

 

I would also be looking at integration of African American sailors and even at changes when more ratings were opened to Filipino sailors.

 

A couple books that I would start with would be First Class by Sharon Disher and Troubled Water by Gregory Freeman. I remember really liking Disher's book because she wrote about several women, a couple of whom made very unwise choices.

[battlemaiden]

Talent pool increases. Subs want them. The Navy recognizes that more women are graduating from science majors than men. They need and want the best of the best. They are an elite community.

 

However,

 

The denial and reality that women have ovaries and a uterus is annoying to me.

 

Nuclear powered subs are unique, quiet, sneaky little buggers. The goal is to keep them under and keep them silent. There are potential legal ramifications to exposing fetuses to radiation that have yet to be addressed. There are also laws to prevent women from peeing on a stick monthly. :glare:

 

If a woman ends up pregnant off the coast of some enemy nation, guess what? Mission cancelled, submarine back out to sea, surface, and remove woman from sub.

 

My opinion: Fine. You women want to be pioneers on subs? Sign on the dotted-frickin line. If you show up pregnant for deployment: you lose, you pay. You get preggo while on deployment: you pay. No one really knows the effects on a growing uterus...women have been warned, the Navy should have no responsibility as long as women have been properly warned. After the confinement and maternity leave you are now a complete waste of time to a submarine. You are unqualified, and career-wise you are toast. A male junior officer with an injury of any significance would automatically be disqualified for submarine service. It is a very unique community. You can't be infirm in any way.

 

A woman has a right to child bearing, don't get me wrong. But submarines are incredibly careful about radiation exposure, so much so that it makes my husband's eyes glaze over when he processes the units of exposure. All this is done because the Navy rigorously and continuously monitors all personnel and their exposure to the radiation. It is different than a carrier. The crew of a sub is so small that the loss of one person is a significant hit.

 

All this rah, rah, women can do anything annoys the heck out of me. I have no doubts we (women) would do fine intellectually, but we can't deny the unique experience aboard subs. Ask a recruiter how many women it takes to recruit to get one woman to make chief versus a man. Women just don't stay in- they have babies and families. These are the facts for the Navy. It is a sticky, ugly situation.

 

Sebastian (a lady) has a great perspective. Better than mine. But I speak from the perspective of Admirals and their staff and what they worry about.

 

Jo

 

(a submariner's wife and life long Navy dependent- daughter, then wife)

[Ravin]

Well, as a "nuke waste" enlistee who wound up in the fleet on a Destroyer...I'd say that it's probably do-able, esp. for officers, but that people being people, it will bring up some of the drama, etc. that follows whenever you put men and women in close quarters, or working together even.

 

A buddy of mine who was (extremely, flamingly) gay and a submariner gave me probably the best reason I'd ever heard for keeping women off of subs. Let's just say, at times it was very frustrating for him. He gave me a tour of his boat when they pulled into port where I was stationed once. It was one of the small fast-attack subs, with only one enlisted berthing and no privacy whatsoever.

 

As for female waste...being on an older destroyer that was not designed to have women aboard was at times kind of gross. You couldn't flush ANY female hygeine ANYTHING down the toilets, and we had to seal the female waste stuff in heavy plastic bags (with a big sealer thing they installed in the female berthing restroom) and store it while underway until we got to a port that would take it off our hands. YUCK. I used a menstrual cup, much easier to deal with aboard ship, and skipping the last row of pills on BC was popular (this was before Seasonale type pills were available--I'm sure they're all the rage these days).

 

I still think it would have been cool to be on a sub--though admittedly not one of the ones that just goes out, sits there, then comes back to port. For me the best part (the icing on the cake) of the service was all the places I got to go. Small ships visit a lot of ports.

 

I was greatly relieved when I was de-nuked because the more I heard about life on a carrier, the less it appealed to me. I liked being on a small ship. When it came time to re-enlist, I was on the fence up to the 11th hour. Knowing if I signed my next duty station would definitely be a carrier was one of the deciding factors for me (along with wanting to go to college and being baby-crazy and not wanting to put it off until I'd have cycled to shore duty--I had a low opinion of women who got pregnant to get out of their sea rotation, and wasn't about to put myself in the position of having to leave a small baby to go back to sea).

 

In the long run, if they want women fully integrated on submarines, they're going to have to design and build future subs to accomodate this. Retrofitting the enlisted berthings of existing subs would, I would think, be prohibitively expensive all by itself, never mind the other issues. Putting female officers on existing subs is a good first step, however. A locking door on the officers' head and staterooms, plus the greater maturity and professionalism officers should have (don't always, as has been mentioned above, but should and usually do), makes it feasible.

[battlemaiden]

Norway, Australia, Canada and Spain already do.

 

This is a great step.

 

:hurray::hurray: Go, women!

 

They don't go geographically far from any coast. They don't have the concerns about medical accessibility (because they are always so close to home). And they don't go out for very long. It is our (the U.S.) Navy that does the secret and risky deployments for 6 months at a time. They aren't the same at all.

 

Now I'll agree with you that some of the male/female relationship arguments we hear are overstated, but life aboard a Norwegian sub that toodles around in the ocean off their coast and can pull in when the coffee supply gets low, is a whole lot different than the stressful and rigorous life aboard a U.S. sub. Problems will arise more frequently because of the nature of their mandate.

 

I'm just saying that submariners that have done joint exercises and toured subs from those countries laugh at the comparison.

[lovemyboys]

My dd is just about to graduate and commission with the first batch of women chosen for subs (she had no interest). The general feeling is that these women are not trying to prove something; they just want to work in a very technical environment. Believe me, they know what they are getting into--they have lived through the pressure cooker of USNA and have spent time on subs already--just no one has acknowledged that. The screening process was brutal. I think it's going to work out.

 

Wow, congratulations. There are a few designations in the Navy that are considered super-smart and the sub community is certainly one of them. Hope your dd has a great career, whether she goes with subs or not.

 

Getting into the first job with the enlisted sailors and day-to-day operations will be among the challenges. Subs present very unique challenges because their mission and requirements are unique within the Navy. For the sake of security (first, the crews involved) and the Navy, I too hope that this change goes well. And if it's not going to work, I hope the PTB will have the guts to revisit the decision.

 

Congrats on your grad.

[missmoe]

nm

Edited May 6, 2010 by missmoe

[Christy B]

Can you - supposing you are a woman - imagine going on duty on a sub that is deployed for months at a time with 50 or however many (?) other men you don't know?

 

Absolutely.